EASE Nonprofit was incorporated in January 1999. Its primary goal is to improve public information and education about the nature and treatment of substance addiction. It had been observed that individuals and communities felt strain resulting from effects of addictions to both legal and illicit substances.

The organization has operated since incorporation without significant outside contribution. Apart from occasional volunteer assistance, the work has been done by the founder.

The goals of the organization comprise:

• Assistance for the public in finding, understanding, and assessing resources to relieve individual suffering: therapy, support, self-direction, peer-direction, and education.
• Education and information for the public about the effects of substance addiction on the communities.
• Education and information for individuals and communities concerning the host of opinions on addictions, and of treatment options.
• De-mystifying addiction and addiction treatment for children and adolescents.
• Improving outcomes of addiction treatment providers and those who refer to providers.
• Improving research into how therapies are chosen by providers - how individuals are assessed for treatment options.
• Disseminating information to public outlets such as libraries, detoxification facilities, correctional facilities, the internet, telephone and audio/video/radio.
• Maintaining information-services free-of-charge and accommodating the language-challenged.

Human and funding resources have so far allowed only a limited effort and EASE Nonprofit would like to expand operations.

Contact: David Hale 952/938-1108 1290 Polk Street, Shakopee MN 55379, hale@tcfreenet.org

Observations:

Heavy, immoderate, or addictive substance use has been attributed variously through the 20th century and into the 21st. Onlookers have ascribed lack of morality, lack of piety, disease, allergy, psychopathology, heredity, and any number of reasons, for what has been called addiction, drunkenness, habitual use, intemperance, and so on. None of the beliefs has led to great improvement in the eradication of the problems. The problems are numerous. Communities deteriorate. Society is burdened. Families are jeopardized. Crime is perpetuated. Violence is escalated. Principally, individuals suffer.

While many reasons contribute to heavy chemical use, no single reason applies to all and no single solution can solve the problems.

In an effort to determine how these problems might better be solved, EASE Founder David Hale began to research the history of thought toward what causes and resolves individual addictions to chemicals. This research led to studying ideas about the societal problems surrounding such addictions.

The most widely held and widely applied interpretation of addiction is the so-called disease-concept. This theory holds that drug and alcohol addiction - if not other addictions - is caused by predisposition. This idea was and is trumpeted by the addiction treatment industry since its inception in the 1960s. Unfortunately for sufferers, this "incurable-but-treatable" disease does not seem to respond well to treatment. Many studies and authors contend that more sufferers find spontaneous recovery if they are not treated than find recovery as a result of treatment.

Clearly, while the disease-concept works in favor of the industry that declares it, it does not bode well for the consumer.

There are options for recovery that are not so lucrative for the professional. Some acknowledge the disease-concept; some contradict it.

While the disease concept may not ring true for the majority of individuals who suffer addiction and its consequences, it clearly gives society the satisfaction of having a clear-cut task at hand: an inoculation or cure. And the general public has been convinced of the disease concept to their satisfaction. Arguments that find societal problems to blame for heavy drug use are less comfortable to the non-sufferer. Yet studies and authors have indicated that simple social-skills education can be more effective treatment than disease-oriented modalities.

Meanwhile some communities have developed what are called Harm-Reduction programs and incentives. While these may not seem like a solution, they do seem to offer individuals some relief from the anguish and remorse of their behavior, and less condemnation and discrimination, less incarceration and, possibly, less counter-productive treatments. Communities save on costs (of repeated treatment, imprisonment, crime prevention and prosecution, AIDS cases, etc.) and benefit by reduced violence and crime related to concentration of addicts and heavy users. Harm (or Risk) Reduction encompasses needle-exchange and education; the term is also used in discussion of medicalization and decriminalization. These latter ideas meet many objections, but they are worth debate and discussion.

Public and private organizations and programs abound to address "drug abuse".

Partnership for a Drug Free America stresses prevention and aversion, though does little to educate the public regarding solutions for individuals who are not averted. Critics suggest that the visibility of the drug problem is bad enough without such an organization running advertisements; that children and adolescents are merely being intrigued, not averted. We might suggest that a Drug Free America is impossible, and that even beneficial or controlled substances can be addictive and troublesome. The effects and allure of drugs and alcohol cannot be denied. The use will likely be with society for a great long while. We hope the snare of addiction can be marked, or can be more easily escaped.

D.A.R.E. is a public project to educate children and adolescents about the "drug problem" and danger of drug use, usually in lectures by a uniformed police officer. This project comes under similar criticism. Children have noted that being told that marijuana is "as dangerous as heroin", led to them to think they had been lied to, or having used marijuana without consequence, moved on to try heroin. We have heard further criticism from parents that D.A.R.E. is akin to a witch-hunt, asking children to turn-in their parents if they use drugs. Here, treatment (the posited result of arrest) is presented as the loving way to be the friend or child of a user. The prosecution and harassment may however render the user hostile and not responsive to treatment. It may also strain the informant's safety and security. The program has been found to have little effect (See easenonprofit.org/dare.htm). Some suggest that the lack of success comes from its insistence on "just say no", as opposed to acknowledging that some children are bound to say yes (possibly the majority.) State-sanctioned programs are in no position to concede the use of illicit drugs, even of alcohol by minors. Therefore, such prevention is not of problem use, but rather of any use.

Kendra Wright, Director, Family Watch (http://www.familywatch.org) writes:

J.F. Malherbe in the paper he wrote at the request of the Ottowa Senate (Malherbe, J.F. (2002), The contribution in defining guiding princples for a public policy on drugs. Document prepared for the Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs, Ottawa: Senate of Canada, page 7. )

"The true harm, the worst of all, the most intolerable, the only one that must absolutely be repressed is wanting to make people happy by deepening their fear of disease and death, without asking each individual to make personal choices and realize his or her preferences. The true, the only harm stems from health ideology, from the furor sanandi, which sketches out our happiness without us being able to enjoy it.

All charitable efforts to reduce harm and relieve individuals should be supported and should be examined. We hope that contributors can make sound decisions on programs. We see a need for a

watchdog, not only for the industry that claims to relieve individual addiction, but also for the programs that steer persons to that industry.

The public is being informed of the popularity of drugs and alcohol. What the public lacks is an understanding of the nature of and solution to heavy or addictive use of intoxicants, both legal and illicit. The concern of EASE Nonprofit is not making the community sterile, or the individual immune to exposure. The concern is how to help should exposure lead to suffering.

Generally, there is no consensus on addiction - its nature, cause or solution. To the typical, uninstructed individual, the concept of "treatment" might seem quite veiled and intimidating. Information seems hard to find without immersion into a program with its specific ideas and paradigm.

We observe that more stress on education would improve mainstream understanding of chemical addiction, which would nurture initiative toward the chemical health of communities, and improve treatment effectiveness.

Prior to the 1920s, alcohol was the only addiction that was given much attention. Other chemical addictions were less visible and infrequently did they cause much stir. Solutions to alcohol addiction were not numerous. The problem drinkers were sometimes a nuisance but hard drinking was more accepted than scorned.

Dedicated drinkers might seek medical help to detoxify and to fend off symptoms of withdrawal. They would be treated with medicines and advised to moderate or abstain.

After its development, AA was seen as a solution based on abstinence and religious guidelines. Opiate addictions were treated with substitute opiates and later with agonists, especially methadone.

Both remedies had some success and many advocates. Studies have suggested however that even these "improvements" in treating addicts had no special impact on the per capita addiction. Studies showed that individuals "matured out" of their heavy use at the same rate as those who subscribed to medical or spiritual therapies.

AA popularized the term "alcoholic" which originally described a beverage, and since described heavy drinkers. AA nurtured the idea of disease as causation, abstinence as the remedy, and the AA program as the only hope for abstinence.

The AA program was made into an industry in the 1960s, and "treatment for alcoholism" became the first line of attack. It involved nursing and indoctrination into the AA program.

Pharmaceutical businesses continued to market products for opiate users as well as disulfirim (Antabuse) as an agonist for alcohol users.

Since then, various modifications of "treatment" and various medicines have emerged. Studies have shown contrary results for all approaches, except that no single approach seems to fit every subject. Some respond to aversion, some to Methadone, some to cognitive training, some to motivation, some to antagonists, and so on.

We see a need for diligent and impartial studies to determine what population will respond to what therapy (or other solution; incarceration remains a possibility, though it is very costly to society.)

Many studies and still more testimonies seem to smack of profit motive or, in the case of advocacy of AA's 12-step program, reluctance to credit anything but that program. (Participants are instructed that they must attribute health to, and proselytize, the 12-step program or they will lose the health.)

We hope to offer means to educate individuals about each and every posited solution to addictive chemical use. We do not see any shortfall in efforts to promote addiction cessation, only in education toward what that might entail.

We observe that despite recent efforts to hold treatment providers responsible for their outcomes, it has historically benefited these businesses to promote the idea of incurable disease that might be treated repeatedly.

We observe the National Institute of Health trying to prove the presence of disease. These efforts appear to prove only post-morbid (after heavy exposure) effects; they have yet to show any pre-morbid (prior to heavy exposure) flags to indicate future addictive use.

We also observe a favorable trend in the treatment of these addictions to discourage the idea of disease and to promote instead the health of individuals. This could dissuade an individual's future use or misuse.

Between pharmacology, motivation, inspiration, risk-reduction and education, there is likely a solution for any individual who would seek one. He or she should be able to see the options and decide personally how to pursue health and safety. Being thrust into a particular modality of treatment, especially one that refutes others, may be counter-productive.

Foremost, we see agitated disagreement on the description, causation and treatment of addiction. We have no desire to enter the debate on any. We see a need for communities and individuals to be presented with the disagreements and all of the component opinions and options.

Unlike prevention programs that conform to governments' rigid no-tolerance, no-use policies, EASE recognizes that drug use will and does occur. EASE feels that the costs of relieving those who find themselves ensnared by drug or alcohol use can and should be reduced.

The great majority of sufferers who are "treated" today, do not find lasting relief. They often find greater suffering and repeated ineffective treatment.

The organization plans to establish itself as:

• an advocate of improved addiction treatment outcomes.
• a forum for and provider of discussion and education about addictions and solutions.
• a resource for finding addiction and related services, organizations, bibliography, etc.
• a publisher and provider of print and electronic directories, newsletters, contributed materials, etc. which allow research of and expression about solutions to addiction.
• a promoter of research into chemical health, addiction, and treatment.
• an instrument for collecting data which might assist in matching sufferers to resources.
• a guardian of goodwill and accountability in services offered those who suffer from substance addictions.

We wish to gain the cooperation of professionals and businesses in the field of addiction and chemical health to arrange a register of services. By advertising the publication of such a register and developing a streamlined interaction, we expect to make the dissemination of the information easy and user-friendly.

As our database develops we will be able to offer educational packages to businesses, libraries, Corrections, and schools.

With the cooperation of schools we will be able to edit or present our information in a fashion that will gratify parents and students alike. We will not be restricted to illuminating resources that prevent drug use or harmful alcohol use. Instead we can offer educational materials that will educate students as to what is offered to resolve the consequences of such behavior.

As to the general public, our advertising and promotion of free and comprehensive information will relieve the futility and confusion some feel in discussing and locating opinion, advise and resources.

We hope to maintain a reputation as impartial and careful providers of information. Some information is more visible than some other, and we will try to broaden the scope of visible ideas.

As these measures improve consumer knowledge, it remains to improve the spectrum of treatment modalities. Counselors in this area (Licensed Alcohol and Drug Counselors, or LADC) should be mandated to understand all treatment modalities and have the instruments to direct clients toward the best therapy, even if that means deferring to another counselor or facility. Providers which employ plural counselors must make this a possibility and a priority.

Those agencies that refer clients to providers must demand this policy. We expect that educating the public will aid our direct efforts to instate such policy.

The estimated 2001 population of Hennepin County is 1,115,000.

The population estimate for Minnesota in 2001 is over 4,972,000. 87.9% of this population is under 65 years of age.

The admissions to (reporting) Substance Abuse Treatment Facilities in 2001 was 42,684. 1% of those reported admissions were persons over 65 years of age.

We can comfortably suggest that 10% of admissions were repeat customers. So a fair estimate is that approximately 38,000 individuals sought or were coerced into reported substance abuse treatment.

Estimates on how many people suffer from drug and alcohol addiction or problems (or history) range from 5 to 15% of the U.S. population over 12 years of age. We think that 5% is an accurate number, meaning that Minnesota's population would include 190,000 with substance abuse problems (factoring out 20% of the population as those under 12 and over 65).

Hennepin County would have 44,600 by the same formula, but Hennepin likely has a higher rate than the national average - perhaps 50,000 people with problems.

We expect that of the 190,000 Minnesotans thus extrapolated as having addiction concerns, half would welcome improved education efforts. All would benefit, as would the community in whole. In the long run, better understanding of addictions, chemical use, and therapies which address such use could reduce the numbers of afflicted. Current mainstream understanding is primarily a by-product of the industry which benefits by the problem.